Our People

Latest

Publication

17 December 2018

There’s a huge variety of conduct that can found an oppression suit pursuant to Section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The “commercial unfairness” test for proving oppression can be described as a little vague.

This vagueness makes life difficult for corporations and those that control them, as the consequences of an oppression suit can be brutal, including the existential threat of the company being wound up.

But what happens if a party claims it is being oppressed, commences legal proceedings, and then claims that the defendants’ conduct within the legal proceedings is itself oppressive?

The case serves as a reminder that the duty of care owed by hospitals and medical facilities extends to both medical and non-medical staff, and includes a duty to take reasonable care not to provide misleading information.

There’s a huge variety of conduct that can found an oppression suit pursuant to Section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The “commercial unfairness” test for proving oppression can be described as a little vague.

This vagueness makes life difficult for corporations and those that control them, as the consequences of an oppression suit can be brutal, including the existential threat of the company being wound up.

But what happens if a party claims it is being oppressed, commences legal proceedings, and then claims that the defendants’ conduct within the legal proceedings is itself oppressive?